Detente in Montpelier?

Richard Nixon delayed the inevitable fall of the Soviet Union by pursuing detente with that country.  So says Peter Schweitzer’s book, Reagan’s War, anyway.

Nixon’s role in history brings to mind our current governor.  By compromising with the Democrats – and just by staying in office – Governor Douglas is delaying the downfall of the Democrats in Vermont.

By remaining as our governor, Douglas will confuse Vermonters about which party to blame for our impending economic crisis.  And all his veto power will do is put off the crisis a little bit.  Furthermore, if Governor Douglas continues his disappointing and disturbing swing to the left (see capital gains idea), he will only further confuse people about whom to blame.

Perhaps the best thing to happen for the Republicans would be to lose the Governor’s office.  Perhaps they should boycott our current governor at the polls.  I’ll be re-examining this fascinating idea as the legislative season progresses.

Comments

[Jon Harrison]

Well, I don't think detente in the seventies postponed the Soviet collapse. But that's a debate for another day.

Mr. Hier makes an interesting point. Maybe the Republicans should throw in the towel and let the Democrats take over the executive as well as the legislative branches of state government. Of course, they're not going to do that. But it would tend to clarify things, wouldn't it?

Something tells me though that the Democrats in Montpelier (I apologize for misspelling Montpelier in a previous post - typical flatlander mistake) would find a way to blame "the rich," or Wall Street, or Washington for the economic debacle when it did occur. Certainly their friends in the press would do everything possible to help them avoid blame.

We have a political class that's happy to tax and regulate business and property owners almost to death, and the fact is, it wins elections for them. It may be that nothing will change until our legislators and regulators discover that their own salaries are in jeopardy. This could happen - their onerous policies eventually could destroy the tax base. When the political class truly feels the pain they have created, then we might get action of the right kind. But why throw up our hands and wait for the catastrophe to happen? Let's try to avert it instead. I don't believe we have really yet begun to fight.

I do wish the governor and the Republican Party in general would raise the volume a bit. There ought to be a harder edge to our side's rhetoric. We should carry our message directly to the wage-earners and small property owners that make up a big chunk of the Democratic Party's support. We need to show those voters how the private sector and small government can benefit them directly. We have nothing to lose but our minority position in Montpelier. We have this state and its future to gain.

[Curtis Hier]

"Of course, they're not going to do that."

I'm not so sure. I predict that campaign funds are going to go more to legislative races than the gubernatorial one, now that the Governor is seen as more of a freelancer and less of a team player.

[Jon Harrison]

You may very well be right. But a lot of money didn't help against Sanders, did it? The Party needs a message and people who know how to deliver it as much as it needs more money. At some point we have to stop pussyfooting around and tell it like it is. This may lead at first to more defeats. But then Goldwater was eventually followed by Reagan, no?